Hell has frozen over

[Someone]

What you mentioned isn't even the best part of aura surrounding this article. The NYT actually edited the article after it had been released to make it LESS damning. Check it out The NYT is such a clown newspaper, I don't see why people even bother reading it.

I think the NYT actually GAINED creditibility with the edit.

 

OLD: Obama “administration has lost all credibility”

NEW: Obama “administration has now lost all credibility on this issue.”

 

Hyperbole is fun on message boards and when complaining about the 'other' political party or a rival team but isn't considered professional in journalism.

 

They removed the hyperbole. That is is good thing.

[Someone]

As one poster at the end of the story says - we are in the Bush-Obama Era - can't separate the 2 on this issue.

In our rightful fight against terror, are we building a KGB style surveillance society?

This surveillance is unacceptable. It was unacceptable when Bush was exercising power unilaterally and it's unacceptable now that Obama has codified the policies supposedly overseen by secret courts and by Congress.

this is the real problem. democrats were revolted by bush's surveillance, but now obama does it and it becomes standard operating procedure. he just normalized it, which is worse than bush acting unilaterally.

 

Would you rather?

 

A. Have the GOV looked at who you called and who called you.

 

or

 

B. Have the GOV looked at who you called and who called you & listen & record what is said on these calls.

[TGHusker]

As one poster at the end of the story says - we are in the Bush-Obama Era - can't separate the 2 on this issue.

In our rightful fight against terror, are we building a KGB style surveillance society?

This surveillance is unacceptable. It was unacceptable when Bush was exercising power unilaterally and it's unacceptable now that Obama has codified the policies supposedly overseen by secret courts and by Congress.

this is the real problem. democrats were revolted by bush's surveillance, but now obama does it and it becomes standard operating procedure. he just normalized it, which is worse than bush acting unilaterally.

agree - My finger pointing goes towards GWB as much as Obama.

[Someone]

Wow, a New York Times OpEd that criticizes Pres Obama. I guess Hell has frozen over and Pigs are flying. The oped states Obama has lost all credibility on the NSA's overstep of the Patriot act - securing the phone info of millions of Verizon subscribers. I agree that the Patriot Act has been taken to the extremes - beyond its intent (so says the bill's author at the end of the story) As one poster at the end of the story says - we are in the Bush-Obama Era - can't separate the 2 on this issue. In our rightful fight against terror, are we building a KGB style surveillance society? http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/opinion/president-obamas-dragnet.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0

Factual Errors:

 

1. It's not an OP-ED.

2. Hell is still hot and pigs remain grounded. In other words, your HYPERBOLE doesn't jive with the facts. There have been OP-ED pieces in the NY Times that are critical of Obama before. Google "The legal machinations Mr. Obama has used to justify war without Congressional consent set a troubling precedent" if you need an example of one.

[sd'sker]

What you mentioned isn't even the best part of aura surrounding this article. The NYT actually edited the article after it had been released to make it LESS damning. Check it out The NYT is such a clown newspaper, I don't see why people even bother reading it.

Ah, yes. Because I remember the conservative media heaping all sorts of criticism on George W. Bush.

 

This editorial seems to indicate that at least the NYT has intellectual honesty.

This has nothing to do with "conservative media" (which is usualy even more laughable). It has to do with the NYT modifying an article as to appear less critical on an issue in an attempt to maintain its audiance/readership. (Later I will go back and edit this post to add "on this issue")

are you sure they did not edit the piece because they worried their hyperbole would lose them credibility?

Yes. 100 percent sure.

well, i do not see how changing the sentence from "lost all credibility" to lost all credibility on this issue" is that big of a deal. seems like the article is damning his policy on this issue specifically, as opposed to an indictment on his tenure. if anything, it makes the criticism more specific and accurate. i do not think the change was necessary, but it is kind of ridiculous to say obama has lost all credibility.

 

all they did was make their damning criticisms more specific. which was the point of the article and was how it should have been done in the first place. obviously it is embarrassing to rush out piece and change it, but it is hardly a scandal.

[Someone]

sd': I don't know...those conservative bloggers who are coming down on the NY Times for making the change have a valid point.

 

Based on this phone records data, Obama has NO CREDIBILITY. Period.

 

Hell, this means that

• Osama is likely still alive,
  
• those nice Russian boys from Boston were framed for the marathon bombing,
  
• we haven't seen 20+ straight months of jobs growth,
  
• Michelle is a dude,
  
• he was born in Kenya,
  
• Travon Martin deserved to die,
  
• Guantanimo was closed in 2009 and
  
• there are Aliens alive at Area 51.
  

[TGHusker]

Wow, a New York Times OpEd that criticizes Pres Obama. I guess Hell has frozen over and Pigs are flying. The oped states Obama has lost all credibility on the NSA's overstep of the Patriot act - securing the phone info of millions of Verizon subscribers. I agree that the Patriot Act has been taken to the extremes - beyond its intent (so says the bill's author at the end of the story) As one poster at the end of the story says - we are in the Bush-Obama Era - can't separate the 2 on this issue. In our rightful fight against terror, are we building a KGB style surveillance society? http://www.nytimes.c...gewanted=1&_r=0

Factual Errors:

 

1. It's not an OP-ED.

2. Hell is still hot and pigs remain grounded. In other words, your HYPERBOLE doesn't jive with the facts. There have been OP-ED pieces in the NY Times that are critical of Obama before. Google "The legal machinations Mr. Obama has used to justify war without Congressional consent set a troubling precedent" if you need an example of one.

 

 

1. What do you mean my link isn't an OP-ED: From the Link

Editorial

 

President Obama’s Dragnet

 

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

 

 

2. Someone - you are way tooooo sensitive. Lighten up - Exaggeration to make a point - Of course the NYT has been critical at times - but they are more known for caring Obama's water than not. Perhaps with all of these 'scandals' they are recognizing the need to be more objective.

[Junior]

Wow, a New York Times OpEd that criticizes Pres Obama. I guess Hell has frozen over and Pigs are flying. The oped states Obama has lost all credibility on the NSA's overstep of the Patriot act - securing the phone info of millions of Verizon subscribers. I agree that the Patriot Act has been taken to the extremes - beyond its intent (so says the bill's author at the end of the story) As one poster at the end of the story says - we are in the Bush-Obama Era - can't separate the 2 on this issue. In our rightful fight against terror, are we building a KGB style surveillance society? http://www.nytimes.c...gewanted=1&_r=0

Factual Errors:

 

1. It's not an OP-ED.

2. Hell is still hot and pigs remain grounded. In other words, your HYPERBOLE doesn't jive with the facts. There have been OP-ED pieces in the NY Times that are critical of Obama before. Google "The legal machinations Mr. Obama has used to justify war without Congressional consent set a troubling precedent" if you need an example of one.

 

 

1. What do you mean my link isn't an OP-ED: From the Link

Editorial

 

President Obama’s Dragnet

 

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

 

 

2. Someone - you are way tooooo sensitive. Lighten up - Exaggeration to make a point - Of course the NYT has been critical at times - but they are more known for caring Obama's water than not. Perhaps with all of these 'scandals' they are recognizing the need to be more objective.

 

Hell will really freeze over when Fox News is critical of a Republican.

[TGHusker]

Wow, a New York Times OpEd that criticizes Pres Obama. I guess Hell has frozen over and Pigs are flying. The oped states Obama has lost all credibility on the NSA's overstep of the Patriot act - securing the phone info of millions of Verizon subscribers. I agree that the Patriot Act has been taken to the extremes - beyond its intent (so says the bill's author at the end of the story) As one poster at the end of the story says - we are in the Bush-Obama Era - can't separate the 2 on this issue. In our rightful fight against terror, are we building a KGB style surveillance society? http://www.nytimes.c...gewanted=1&_r=0

Factual Errors:

 

1. It's not an OP-ED.

2. Hell is still hot and pigs remain grounded. In other words, your HYPERBOLE doesn't jive with the facts. There have been OP-ED pieces in the NY Times that are critical of Obama before. Google "The legal machinations Mr. Obama has used to justify war without Congressional consent set a troubling precedent" if you need an example of one.

 

 

1. What do you mean my link isn't an OP-ED: From the Link

Editorial

 

President Obama’s Dragnet

 

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

 

 

2. Someone - you are way tooooo sensitive. Lighten up - Exaggeration to make a point - Of course the NYT has been critical at times - but they are more known for caring Obama's water than not. Perhaps with all of these 'scandals' they are recognizing the need to be more objective.

 

Hell will really freeze over when Fox News is critical of a Republican.

I hope every news source can be objective and critical of whoever needs the critical review. As citizens we fall into a trap if we have blinded loyalty to any party or cherished political position. Blinded loyalty without a free, OBJECTIVE press leads to Hiltler's Germany. I fault the press, right or left, if they carry water for any politician/party - they void their responsibility of being the "4th Pillar of Democracy" . Yes, I lean conservative, so my filters see the world from that direction, Junior, Someone, Carl, just to name a few, lean liberal but I see you guys as reasonable (and I learn from you guys too - yes even at my age I need to keep learning and not closing out people because their views are different than mine) - but you have filters also. Regarding fox news, - remember to separate the prime time opinion shows from actual news coverage. The most opinion shows on Fox are most clearly mouth pieces for the RNC as the opinion shows on MSNBC are for the DNC. Even 'objective' news shows can be bias based on what they decide not to cover.

[zoogs]

I don't think EITHER occurrence is NEARLY as rare as some of you are imagining.

[Someone]

Wow, a New York Times OpEd that criticizes Pres Obama. I guess Hell has frozen over and Pigs are flying. The oped states Obama has lost all credibility on the NSA's overstep of the Patriot act - securing the phone info of millions of Verizon subscribers. I agree that the Patriot Act has been taken to the extremes - beyond its intent (so says the bill's author at the end of the story) As one poster at the end of the story says - we are in the Bush-Obama Era - can't separate the 2 on this issue. In our rightful fight against terror, are we building a KGB style surveillance society? http://www.nytimes.c...gewanted=1&_r=0

Factual Errors:

 

1. It's not an OP-ED.

2. Hell is still hot and pigs remain grounded. In other words, your HYPERBOLE doesn't jive with the facts. There have been OP-ED pieces in the NY Times that are critical of Obama before. Google "The legal machinations Mr. Obama has used to justify war without Congressional consent set a troubling precedent" if you need an example of one.

 

 

1. What do you mean my link isn't an OP-ED: From the Link

Editorial

 

President Obama’s Dragnet

 

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

 

 

2. Someone - you are way tooooo sensitive. Lighten up - Exaggeration to make a point - Of course the NYT has been critical at times - but they are more known for caring Obama's water than not. Perhaps with all of these 'scandals' they are recognizing the need to be more objective.

1. "An op-ed, abbreviated from opposite the editorial page^[1] (though often mistaken for opinion-editorial), is a newspaper article that expresses the opinions of a named writer who is usually unaffiliated with the newspaper's editorial board. These are different from editorials (which are usually unsigned and written by editorial board members) and letters to the editor (which are submitted by readers of the journal or newspaper)." Better luck next time.

 

2. You seem to be ok with exagerations and hyperbole. Is that the reason you refer to Obamacare as a 'scandal'? When do facts matter and when do they not?